He declared his laws immune to judicial review, which is almost the opposite of protecting against populist sentiment. Maybe he's telling the truth and it will be temporary, but who's to say that the next President will show similar restraint?

The Alien and Sedition Acts were also effectively immune to judicial review. How did the American democracy experiment work out?

Yes, I know the example isn't strictly analogous to what's going on here, but the broader point I'm trying to make is that the immediate post-revolutionary period for any polity is extremely volatile and fluid. You are certainly right to keep a skeptical and wary eye on things, but let's also not declare it "dead".

Aren't the Egyptian courts currently full of Mubarak cronies anyways? Not that I think this was the most artful way that Morsi should have dealt with them, but I agree that this doesn't mean the revolution is over. If anything, this will strengthen the liberal/secular opposition to Morsi, maybe motivate them into become better organized.

But this gets at the whole crux of the matter: the fact that the many disparate movements' sentiments dovetail in being anti-erstwhile-regime doesn't mean that, once erstwhile-regime is overthrown, they will all dovetail in being pro-liberal democracy. And if they aren't, who are we to tell them that they "should" be? And if they aren't, what then?

lol. I'd say most of those behind the revolution don't want-- at least ostensibly-- to have another Nasser (okay, maybe what he symbolized but certainly not someone with his power), Sadat, or Mubarak. I personally had always expressed my reservations about the "Arab Spring," saying it was overhyped in the media and not much in the way of real positive change in any sense would result, in Tunisia or Egypt or Libya or Syria. I concede that it remains to be seen whether I'm correct, but, well.

Understood, and I suspect we don't disagree on much. But how would you couch your sentiment, exactly? I think one of George W. Bush's most poignant quotes is, "The peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of a true democracy". That's a per se ideal. Either you want to be ethnocentric and tell Egyptians they "should" value that ideal, or remain a contended "multiculturalist" who is content to accept what other cultures want without caveat.

There's no middle ground? Criticizing single-party states and dictators isn't necessarily ethnocentric, as such things have been near-universal among cultures in modern history. And I haven't really said I want a strictly American or Western model.

Even disregarding civil liberties, there's no way for the populace to affect the direction the country is taking on big policy questions, except though revolution, when opposing parties are not allowed. How revenue is spent and how it could have been better spent is one concern. International relations is another. Say, if your government willingly and deliberately makes a habit of antagonizing a world power and inviting harm on its own shores, while most of the populace don't want to be dragged in to a fight. See: Iran. I am quite certain that having a say in the fundamentals of how the government is running the country is a universal desire. The degree to which they care about civil liberties and the finer details of management can vary, but I think everyone wants a say about the broader general direction, at least. And finally, no one likes corruption. If anything whatsoever is universal, it's that.

"Say, if your government willingly and deliberately makes a habit of antagonizing a world power and inviting harm on its own shores, while most of the populace don't want to be dragged in to a fight. See: Iran."

How is Iran doing that? They id not set up shop in nearby Mexico, the US did in their sphere of imfluence. How are they invting harm to their shores?

When you're a major oil exporter and you choose to be opposed to the US, not to do business with the US and not allow any American companies in, already that makes the US want to look around for any excuse they can to smear you, and if possible, change your regime. The Iranian government knows this, yet in addition to this, they play with fire by financially and materially supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, that antagonize and are constant headaches for Israel, one of the US's closest allies, if not THE most. In addition to that, they add even more fuel to the fire that they're playing with by refusing to recognize Israel as a legitimate state, and then allowing their president to go to the UN and question the historical record about the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks, thereby being sure to eliminate all sympathy and qualms about bombing them among Western populaces. And finally, in addition to that, they add uranium to that fire, literally, by starting a nuclear program that is lacking in transparency, and causing the West reason for concern.

I'm not saying that a third world nation should necessarily bow their heads and be subservient to the interests and energy security framework of the world powers, but if they're going to be defiant, at least be tactful and shrewd about it. Don't do it in such a belligerent way that your enemies, who by the way are multiple times as powerful as you, can choose from a laundry list of 100 reasons/excuses to hurt you. I mean, ffs, the US proved with its backing of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war that it wants your destruction, at worst, or to just keep you comfortably weak, at best. Don't tempt them any further! This regime has been playing with fire since its inception. Frankly, I'm amazed they've managed to stay this long, and somewhat morbidly impressed.

"When you're a major oil exporter and you choose to be opposed to the US, not to do business with the US and not allow any American companies in, already that makes the US want to look around for any excuse they can to smear you, and if possible, change your regime. '

You know when Mossadegh wanted to nationalise his oil he compensated foreign the oil companies yet he was still overthrown.no wonder the current regime does not trust the US. By the way Mossadegh was secular and teh Iranian Revulution might never had happened if the US would not had overthrown him.
"Israel, one of the US's closest allies, if not THE most. "

Israel can take care of itself, they even have nukes and a well organised army.

"In addition to that, they add even more fuel to the fire that they're playing with by refusing to recognize Israel as a legitimate state, "

That is simbolic nonsense, them not recognising it does not mean Israel won't whop in the atlas.

"and then allowing their president to go to the UN and question the historical record about the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks,'

Whats the big deal? They can belive and say whatver they want. How does it impact the amercian citizens daily life that Ahma has such beliefs.

" And finally, in addition to that, they add uranium to that fire, literally, by starting a nuclear program that is lacking in transparency, and causing the West reason for concern."

Considering the hawkish US rhetoric about Syria for exsmple it seems reasonable, it could stop a ground an invasion.

"Don't tempt them any further! This regime has been playing with fire since its inception. Frankly, I'm amazed they've managed to stay this long, and somewhat morbidly impressed."

We are an Empire and we can do whatever the heck we want. F national sovegrinity unless its the US.

We seem to have gotten off track. You asked "how are they inviting harm to their shores". Considering one of the points of contention in this presidential race was which candidate can be tougher and more hawkish on Iran, I'd say they've already succeeded in inviting it. A part of the mainstream public political discourse four years ago was a Beach Boys song altered to be about bombing Iran. Harm has gladly taken the invitation and is bringing jello. Harm can't wait to jump in it. He's staying for dinner, he's spending the night, harm is giddy like a kid in Disneyland.

I find the conversation immensely bizarre. There are undeniably sizable protests in Egypt, and all sectors of the country seem to be in an uproar. What's with the abstracted speculation on what "they" want? If they were okay with things, they probably wouldn't be burning down Brotherhood political offices. Further, I guess I don't understand the point about valuing peaceful transitions of power. The "democracy" part is pretty superfluous, but basically all nations desire this. The Chinese poured tremendous stagecraft into ensuring it at their recently closed Eighteenth Party Congress, and in centuries prior monarchies devised rules of succession to guarantee the same thing. When has any polity not valued this?

Considering how easily the army changed his mind in Egypt it seems far more probabale that it was a coup and not a revolution.

Violet:
"Considering one of the points of contention in this presidential race was which candidate can be tougher and more hawkish on Iran, I'd say they've already succeeded in inviting it. "
This would happen no matter what, the US is an Empire.

I don't disagree that the US is an empire, but the empire still has to feed the masses at home some convenient excuse to do its meddling around the world. And the Iranian regime is making it very easy for the US to find such excuses.

If the Iranian regime were a little smarter with their own conduct, no doubt hawkish politicians would still be cooking up new excuses annually, but at least it would be harder for them to come up with ones that stick. That's all I'm saying.

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and top Egyptian judges on Monday moved to defuse a crisis in the country, with both side backing down from a battle over Morsi’s sweeping self-appointed powers.

Coming out of emergency meetings in Cairo, Morsi issued a statement in which he agreed that only his decisions related to "sovereign" matters would be protected from judicial review, his spokesman said, indicating he had accepted a compromise proposed by the judiciary members.

...

Morsi’s four-point statement issued Monday says that only "sovereign decisions" — for instance, those related to declaring war and dealing with existential threats — would fall under the decree. Even those powers would only apply until there is a new constitution and fresh parliamentary elections, expected in two months.

The statement went on to express respect for the "immunity and independence" of the judiciary. It also qualified his earlier call for a retrial of former regime officials — including dictator Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted in February 2011 after three decades in power. Such retrials would occur only if new evidence emerged, the statement said.

Also, here's a current map of the Syrian Civil War.
(Assad, SNC/Kurd, Chaos/Unclear)

Several hours ago, all access to Syria by way of the internet disappeared. This is particularly concerning, I think, as this opens the question of what is going on in Syria now that it's that much harder to see what's going on and get information out of the country.http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121129141350901277.html
According to Syria's Minister of Information, this was done by "terrorists" and not the government, however that seems to be a 1984-esque title at this point.